Divemedic

So it appears as though Liberals are all of a sudden becoming pro gun. Let me enjoy a bit of sweet, sweet schadenfreude as I rehash a few liberal arguments:

1 You claimed for years that no militia can defeat the US military, making the right to keep and bear arms useless. Remember? Were you wrong? Or lying?

2 You claimed that you wanted to change the law, and give gun owners a choice: “You can have all your guns and no changes to law, or your narrative about how you’re The Good Guys. You may not, under any circumstances, have both. ”  Have you changed your mind? Or were you lying?

3 You claim that owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun. We have all heard you claim that a person who owns a gun is 7 times more likely to die by being shot than a person who doesn’t. Were you wrong, or lying?

4 For years, you have claimed that gun ownership is a sign of a man with small genitalia. Did your dick fall off? Did you finally see a naked man and realize that you don’t measure up? Or were you lying?

Were you wrong, or just lying? Were you lying in an attempt to disarm us because we couldn’t then resist your policies? Now that your candidate has failed, you have either decided that you were wrong, or finally admitted that you were lying. Which is it?

This is a GREAT song.

When engaging in the debate over gun and self defense rights, we have Supreme Court decisions, facts, figures, and evidence to support our arguments.

They have dick jokes.

Cue a website called the National Small Penis Association, which is apparently there to make fun of gin owners. I won’t provide a direct link, because I don’t want to give them the traffic.

This is not a political debate. It is a school yard set of childish insults. Any childish insults that the followers of this put up will be memorialized.

The First Amendment enshrines the right to freely assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances by prohibiting the Congress from establishing a law that would abridge those rights. That is, the Amendment recognizes that the People have those rights.

But what if a group of citizens uses force to prevent other citizens from exercising those same rights? That is exactly what Democrats who are upset over the loss of their candidate in a free election are attempting. In thier own words:

 “We’re exercising our freedom of speech and really want to set a tone for the next few years that there’s a massive body of people … who are very concerned about the dangerous direction Donald Trump is taking our country in. [We hope to] turn the inauguration into as big of a clusterf— as possible.”

Note that the stated goal is NOT to speak their own minds, but to disrupt and prevent other citizens from exercising their own rights to assemble and be heard. They are using force to deny people their rights.

Others have advocated using the Military to delay the inauguration. While this will not happen, it shows that Democrats are not the anti-war pacifists that they profess to be: they have no problem with using violence to achieve their own ends.

The days of civil discourse are over. We are one the verge of another civil war.

Paul Ryan stands up and supports people who flout the law at the expense of law abiding citizens. Tell me again how the Rs and the Ds are different…

Guns are all but illegal in New York City. That is why crimes like this don’t happen: 12 year old boys don’t attempt to rob little girls on the New York Subway. This MUST be fake news.

I always thought that rifling the barrel was the hardest part. Here is a video that shows how to get it done. and also illustrates why gun control will never be able to eliminate all firearms.

In the 2016 NBA finals, the Championship was wrongly awarded to Cleveland because they won 4 games of the 7 game series. If you look at the scores for those seven games, the Golden State Warriors scored 699 points, with Cleveland scoring only 629 points. Since the goal of basketball is to score points, the team scoring the most points should win the championship. I demand that the NBA take the Championship title from Cleveland and declare the Golden State Warriors to be the winner!

Ridiculous, right? Both teams knew the rules, and the majority of games won in the series determines the winner. To demand that the rules be changed after the winner is determined is disingenuous. After all, if the rule were such that the winner was determined by points instead of games won, the teams would have pursued different strategies and the outcomes would have been different.

This absurd argument is the exact same one being made by the people who claim that Trump lost the popular vote, and therefore shouldn’t be President.

Several months ago, I was attacked in my classroom by a student. It all began when I was visited in my classroom by the Principal, who was there for an unannounced visit to evaluate the effectiveness of my teaching style as a part of my annual evaluation. During that observation, she noted that there were several students who were engaged with their cellular phones out of my sight. I lost points on my evaluation for not noticing and preventing students who were using their phones.

So, the next day I announced to all of my classes that I would be strictly enforcing the “no cell phones in class” rule that the school had in place. One student in my fourth period class continued to use his phone. I told him that if he continued to use that phone, I would take it to the front office, and he could explain why he was using it to the Principal, who would administer punishment in the process. The student replied: “I would like to see you try to take it.”

As per school policy, we cannot write a discipline referral without first contacting the parent, so that afternoon, I sent an email to the student’s mother. I never got a reply.

The next day in that class, students again were using their phones. I told them to put them away. It took two announcements, but all finally put them away, except the one student. I saw him there, typing a text message. I took his phone, and he said “Why are you being such a jerk?” I told him that he would have to get it back from the office. I wrote the incident up, and sent it to the Vice Principal.

When class was over, it was time for lunch and the student hung back a bit. He approached me and asked for the phone. I again told him he could get it from the office. At that point, he tackled me. A short struggle ensued, and we wound up in the hallway, with me lying on top of him, holding him down.

While legally a child, this student was large. Larger than I am. A defensive back on the football team, the seventeen year old junior is over six feet tall and weighs more than 170 pounds. He bench presses 205 and can dead lift 375 pounds. This is a child in name only.

There were no witnesses, since the other students had left the class. The evidence seemed to all be on my side: the email to the mother, the referral, the fact that he stayed behind to confront me. The police investigated. I was reassigned to temporary duties that did not involve student contact while the investigation was carried out. I hired a lawyer. She told me that even if the school cleared me, it was likely that I would be fired, because I was now a liability.

I decided that even if I were to return to the classroom, I would not be safe. I would have to watch my back every day. A month and a half later, I was still not back in the classroom. I no longer felt safe ir supported, so I resigned.

The student? All he got was a week of out of school suspension- for “fighting” – not for attacking a teacher.

Four years ago, I posted that 28% of the residents of the USA were responsible for 53% of the homicides in 2011. I want to revisit this using the Uniform Crime Report for 2015, so I can compare it to 2016, when those numbers come available.

According to the 2015 Uniform Crime Report from the FBI, there were a total of 14,856 homicides.

Looking at Table 16, we see that there were 5,990 homicides in cities with a population of 250,000 or more. There were 1934 homicides in cities with a population of 100,000 to 249,999. Meaning that in cities with a population of 100,000 or more, there were 7,924 homicides. That represents 53.34% of all homicides in the nation.

There are a total of 93,613,802 people who live in US cities with a population of 100,000 or more. That represents 29.13% of the population.

So 29.13% of the population of the US is responsible for 53.34% of the homicides. The homicide rate in this group is 8.46 per 100,000. The homicide rate in the remainder of the nation is 3.04 per 100,000 – nearly 1/3 as many homicides per capita as the cities.